DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 30, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1: “working surface” corresponds to a mold surface (Fig. 1, item 3)
Claim 1: “optical device” corresponds to a camera (Fig. 1, item 9) or lidar sensors (claim 2)
Claim 1: “computing device” corresponds to a microprocessor, memory, or hard disk ([0018]).
Claim 1: “feedback device” corresponds to a projector device (17).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gordon (US 20110089591) in view of Engelbart (EP 1503206A1) with Salimi (US 20190202143) applied as evidence only.
As to claim 1, Gordon teaches a production system comprising a working surface ([0004], mold cavity), an optical device for optically capturing features of the working surface and/or fiber plies ([0046], camera with image processing), a computing device ([0051], hard disk) which determines a parameter ([0014], incorrect location) and a reference parameter ([0014], correct location), and a feedback device configured to give feedback depending on the comparative result ([0014], feeding back and repositioning). Gordon teaches a laser projector ([0042]) that projects an outline of each piece of material ([0018]) which is a visual feedback including a pattern of light projected on the working surface and demarcating a target position of the ply.
Gordon teaches a control device that projects a first pattern for a kth ply ([0014]) which is a result of a comparative result between the actual position and target position (incorrect location vs. correct location) of the kth ply. Gordon also teaches/suggests that the part is made from multiple pieces ([0002]). When the same process is performed for a second piece (the jth ply) of the multiple pieces, then the computing device would obviously also project a second pattern depending on a comparative result of the actual position and target position (incorrect location vs. correct location) of the second piece (the jth ply). The limitation that k is “incremented from 1 to N” and j is “incremented from 1 to M” is met when k is 1 piece or ply, and j is also 1 piece or ply. Gordon provides a computing device ([0051]) which determines a comparative result between the captured features and the reference position (incorrect location vs. correct location) and projects the target/reference position ([0014]).
While Gordon does not specifically teach that the projector projects the target position for the kth and jth patterns “at the same time” one would have found it obvious to configure the Gordon computing device to perform these operations simultaneously to speed production and represents an obvious combination or rearrangement of steps. As evidence that this is obvious, Salimi provides evidence of a control device which combines these steps (for kth and jth plies) in a similar apparatus and control device (Salimi, [0046]) configured to combine these steps and projecting the boundaries of a plurality of layup segments or boundaries simultaneously (Salimi, [0005]).
Gordon is silent to a computing device configured to determine the presence of a tool by determining the position (and/or geometry) of the tool.
Engelbart teaches a computing device ([0060]) coupled to cameras configured to determine the presence and position of a foreign object ([0049]). Although Engelbart does not specifically teach identifying a tool as such, Engelbart identifies any foreign object, and would obviously identify a tool as a foreign object during layup. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these structural features from Engelbart into Gordon as an improvement providing the capability to eliminate foreign objects from the Gordon layup. Gordon teaches a base process, and Engelbart teaches a known improvement applicable to Gordon’s layup process. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the Engelbart improvement to Gordon would predictably provide identification and ability to remove foreign objects (including tools) in the Gorton manufacturing apparatus.
As to claim 2, Gordon teaches cameras ([0057]) which are inherently optical cameras. As to claim 3, Gordon teaches a mold working surface ([0004], mold cavity). The Gordon cameras would inherently capture features within a volume above and including the mold surface since they are capable of recognizing an incorrect location of a piece of material in the mold cavity ([0014]). As to claim 4, the Gordon cameras are capable of capturing the position of edges. As to claims 5-9, Gordon teaches a laser projector ([0042]) that projects an outline of each piece of material ([0018]) which is a visual feedback including a pattern of light projected on the working surface and demarcating a target position of the ply in a “wind-blade” in [0052].
As to claim 10, Gordon teaches a control device that projects a first pattern for a first ply ([0014]) which is a result of a comparative result (incorrect location vs. correct location), and also teaches/suggests that the part is made from multiple pieces ([0002]). When the same process is repeated for a second piece of the multiple pieces, then the computing device would project a second pattern depending on a comparative result (incorrect location vs. correct location).
As to claim 11, Gordon teaches a control device that projects a first pattern for a 1st ply ([0014]) which is a result of a comparative result between the actual (captured) position and target position (incorrect location vs. correct location). Gordon also teaches/suggests that the part is made from multiple pieces ([0002]). When the same process is repeated for a second piece (the kth piece) of the multiple pieces, then the computing device would obviously also project a second pattern depending on a comparative result of the actual position and target position (incorrect location vs. correct location) of the second piece (the kth piece).
As to claim 12, Gordon teaches a control device that projects a pattern for a ply ([0014]) which is a result of a comparative result between the actual position and target position (incorrect location vs. correct location) of the ply, which would necessarily/inherently include reference points on the working surface. The claimed foreign objects is interpreted to be optional/non-required in light of the word “any”.
As to claim 13, Gordon teaches a computing device ([0051], hard disk) that would obviously store the captured features.
As to claim 17, Gordon already teaches an optical device. In the combination with Engelbart above, Engelbart teaches a computing device ([0060]) coupled to cameras configured to locate foreign objects and indicate the position and/or geometry of the foreign object on the working surface ([0049]). Although Engelbart does not specifically teach identifying a tool as such, Engelbart identifies any foreign object, and would obviously identify a tool as a foreign object during layup. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these structural features from Engelbart into Gordon for the same reasons set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Engelbart reference now applied in the rejection of claim 1 clearly detects and identifies foreign objects. Since a tool represents a foreign object, Engelbart provides the capability to identify the position and geometry of a tool, as well as all other foreign objects. In the previous interview summary, the Examiner intended to draw a distinction between (a) identification of any foreign object (which is a capability provided by Engelbart’s device) including a tool, and (b) a more specific identification where the computer identifies a particular tool by its outline or other characteristics. Since the claim does not make a distinction, and any tool is a foreign object, the Examiner believes that Gordon and Engelbart meet the claimed apparatus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742